coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Celje.
6.  In 1992 the applicant was undergoing a military training as a conscript. On 6 November 1992 he was injured while playing football.
7.  On 3 November 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”) in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,256,002 Slovenian tolars (approximately 17,760 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 13 February 1997 the judge presiding over the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.
On 30 September 1997 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 15 December 1997 and 14 January 1998 the court held hearings.
On 15 January 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.
On 4 February and 5 June 1998 the court held hearings. The latter hearing was adjourned because the applicant's mother, who was summoned to the court to be heard as a witness, did not appear.
On 3 July 1998 the court held a hearing and issued a judgment on the merits. It found the Ministry liable for the injuries sustained in the accident. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 December 1998.
8.  The Ministry appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 15 September 1999 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 30 September 1999.
9.  The Ministry lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 28 June 2000 the court rejected the appeal.
10.  In the meanwhile, the Celje District Court continued proceedings concerning the damages. On 13 October 1999 it held a hearing and decided to appoint a medical expert.
On 27 September 2000 the court held a hearing and appointed a medical expert. On 13 November 2000 the appointed expert delivered the opinion.
On 21 November 2000 the applicant submitted preliminary written submissions and increased his claim.
On 1 December 2000 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim for damages in part, was served on the applicant on 19 March 2001.
11.  On 28 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. The Ministry cross-appealed.
On 4 July 2002 the court dismissed both appeals. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.
12.  On 10 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). The Ministry cross-appealed.
On 23 October 2003 dismissed both appeals. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 November 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Škofja Vas.
6.  On 15 October 1996 the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) issued a decision in the inheritance proceedings finding the applicant and her mother heiresses of the property of the applicant's deceased father.
7.  On 27 January 1999 the applicant instituted non-contentious civil proceedings in the Celje Local Court against her brother S.V. seeking the division of the land which they owned jointly.
On 22 November 1999 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint two experts, one in construction engineering and the other in agriculture, to assess the value of the real estate at issue.
On 26 February and 1 March 2000 the experts submitted their opinions.
On 22 February 2000 the applicant lodged a request for an interlocutory measure.
On 19 May 2000 the court held a hearing where the applicant withdrew her request concerning the interlocutory measure. The court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment dividing the real estate was served on the applicant on 5 July 2000.
8.  On 14 July 2000 the applicant appealed. Her adversary cross-appealed.
On 28 March 2002 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) allowed the appeals, set aside the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 19 April 2002.
9.  On 19 April, 16 September and 28 October 2002 the applicant requested the Celje Local Court to set a date for a hearing.
The hearing scheduled for 29 November 2002 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
On 28 May 2003 the court held a hearing.
The hearing scheduled for 21 November 2003 was adjourned at the request of the applicant, because the parties retained an expert in an attempt to settle the case out of the court.
On 10 January 2005 the parties informed the court that the out-of-court settlement was not reached.
On 2 March 2003 the court held a hearing.
On 21 August 2006 the parties to the proceeding settled the case outside the court.
5.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1960 and 1964 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Antalya prison at the time of their applications to the Court.
6.  At the time of the events, the first applicant was the General Secretary and the other applicants were the members of the board of directors of the Turkish Socialist Workers Party (Türkiye Sosyalist İşçi Partisi).
7.  On 12 December 2000 a demonstration concerning the establishment of F-type prisons turned violent. On the same day the police, in accordance with a search warrant issued by a State Security Court, searched the Party building and found a number of documents and materials.
8.  On 19 December 2000 the applicants were remanded in custody.
9.  On 9 January 2001 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation and requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law no. 3713.
10.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicants maintained that the materials found during the search could have been placed there by anyone since anyone could have entered into the building. They pointed out that, on the day of the search, there had been a violent demonstration during which the doors and the windows of the Party building had been broken.
11.  On 15 May 2001 the Ankara State Security Court, referring to the documents and materials seized in the Party building, convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment. The court further barred them from public service for three years.
12.  The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation.
13.  On an unspecified date, the principal public prosecutor submitted his written opinion to the Court of Cassation. This opinion was not communicated to the applicants.
14.  On 26 November 2001 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. This decision was pronounced, in the absence of the applicants and their representatives, on 28 November 2001.
15.  On 20 August 2003 the applicants were released from prison.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Žalec.
6.  On 9 April 1993 the applicant was seriously injured in a car accident and, as a result, remained permanently disabled. He had previously taken out accident insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking payment of disability allowance in the amount of 1,656,732 Slovenian tolars (approximately 6,900 euros) due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
On the basis of, inter alia, the expert opinion and partly paid compensation, the applicant three times modified his claim during the proceedings.
Between 24 May 1996 and 21 May 2001 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 3 September 1996 and 30 May 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 December 2001.
8.  On 18 December 2001 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 5 March 2003 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case in the respective part to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 3 April 2003.
9.  In the re-examination proceedings, on 4 April 2003 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
A hearing was held on 19 May 2003.
After the hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 September 2003.
10.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant appealed.
On 10 March 2005 the Celje Higher Court partly upheld the appeal and changed the first-instance court's judgment accordingly. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 March 2005.
4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1933 respectively and live in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region. They are former employees of the State Mining Company Novopavlivska (“the Mine,” ДП шахта „Новопавлівська”).
5.  On 6 October 1999, 16 and 28 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) ordered the Mine to pay UAH 3,626.42,[1] UAH 1,000.96[2] and UAH 1,868.12[3] respectively in salary arrears and various payments to the first applicant.
6.  On 1 and 23 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court ordered the Mine to pay UAH 3,776.36[4] and UAH 1,491.80,[5] respectively, in salary arrears and various payments to the second applicant.
7.  All of the above judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.
8.  On 29 May 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.
9.  On 14 November 2002 the Commercial Court declared the Mine bankrupt and ordered its rehabilitation, which was to be completed by 31 December 2007.
10.  In July 2004 the first applicant received the debts due to him by the judgments of 6 October 1999 and 16 February 2001. As regards the debt due to him by the judgment of 28 February 2001 – the first applicant received it in several instalments, the last payment being made on 27 July 2006.
11.  On 27 November 2004 the second applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 23 February 2001. The debt due to him by the judgment of 1 February 2001 was paid to him in several instalments, the final one being made on 26 July 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 10 August 1999 the Diyarbakır Provincial Private Administration Office (Diyarbakır Il Özel Idare Müdürlüğü) expropriated the plots of land belonging to the applicant in Diyarbakır. A committee of experts assessed the value of these plots of land and this amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.
6.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant brought an action before Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance, requesting increased compensation.
7.  On 22 January 2002 the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of 118,212,590,355 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 97,861 euros (EUR)) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision, running from 8 October 1999.
8.  On 12 March 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
9.  On 15 March 2002 the administration paid the applicant a total sum of TRL 281,371,870,000 (approximately 237,519 euros (EUR)).
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in İzmit.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 11 June 1991 an auditor initiated an investigation into the alleged falsification of documents carried out in the applicant's pharmacy. On 4 July 1991 the auditor informed the Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor about the outcome of his investigation.
8.  The Ministry of Finance and Customs filed a complaint against the applicant. Consequently, on 16 June 1993 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant for forgery of official documents.
9.  On 21 June 1993 the Diyarbakır Assize Court scheduled the first hearing for 20 September 1993. It requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to find the applicant's address. It also requested the Ministry of Finance to submit all documents that are relevant to the case. The applicant was not present during most of the hearings, however he was represented by his lawyer.
10.  On 10 May 1994, at the sixth hearing, the Ministry complied with the court's request.
11.  Following the establishment of the applicant's address, his statement taken by way of rogatory letter was submitted to the case file during the hearing of 28 June 1994. Moreover, at the same hearing the court requested Bismil and Mersin Assize Courts to take the statements of two witnesses. These statements were submitted to the case-file at the following hearing.
12.  On 28 February 1995 the court sent the case-file to an expert to comment on the allegedly forged documents. During the following seven hearings there was no reply from the expert. The trial judge has therefore rescheduled the hearing without taking any substantial or procedural decision. At the hearing of 14 May 1996 the expert report was submitted to the case file.
13.  On 19 September 1996 the court referred the case-file to the Forensic Department in order to have their opinion on the matter. After eight hearings, on 27 January 1998, the Forensic Department submitted its report on the allegedly forged documents, but it failed to send back the case-file. On 23 June 1998 the case-file was sent back to the court.
14.  On 9 February 1999 the court requested a graphology expert at the Forensic Department to determine whether the handwriting and the signatures found on the documents belonged to the applicant.
15.  On 23 December 1999 the graphology expert submitted his report.
16.  On 18 January 2000 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to two years and eleven months imprisonment.
17.  The applicant appealed against the judgement of the Assize Court. On 24 January 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Assize Court. The Court of Cassation pronounced its decision in the presence of the applicant. The final decision was deposited with the Registry of the first instance court on 26 February 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk region. He is a former employee of the OJSC “Electron‑Gaz” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Електрон-Газ”). At the material time the State owned 99.96% of the Company's share capital. The Company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
5.  On 6 October 2000 the Zhovti Vody Court (Жовтоводський міський суд Дніпропетровської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 12,514.76[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Zhovti Vody Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.
6.  On 26 December 2002 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 2000 was delayed on account of the Company's lack of funds. It also stated that the attachment of the Company's property was impeded by the Law of 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
7.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Дніпропетровської області) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and on 10 October 2003 ordered its rehabilitation to be completed by 10 October 2004.
8.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 6 October 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the city of Simferopil, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”), Ukraine.
5.  In April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopil against her employer, the Ministry of Education of the ARC (Міністерство освіти Автономної Республіки Крим), claiming different payments allegedly due to her and compensation for moral damage. On 1 December 2003 the court awarded the applicant 1,184.98[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Центрального районного суду м.Сімферополя) in allowance for the length of service, in health allowance and in compensation for the delays of salary payments. By an additional decision of 1 March 2004, the court rejected the applicant's claim for moral damage. On 22 September 2004 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the judgment of 1 December 2003. The applicant did not appeal in cassation against it.
6.  By letter of 17 February 2005, the Prosecutor's Office of the ARC, following the applicant's complaint, informed her that the Ministry of Education of the ARC had been closed down and that the writ of enforcement had been forwarded to the liquidation commission.
7.  By the letter of 3 May 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment of 1 December 2003 had been enforced by instalments, the final amount being paid on 27 April 2006.
8.  The applicant alleged that she has been persecuted by the police. In particular, the applicant stated that she had been beaten by police officers on 7 December 2003. From the applicant's submissions, it seems that this allegation is related to the situation of her son, who was detained on suspicion of committing a crime. The applicant did not raise this complaint before any relevant State authority.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivska Mining Company No. 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 «Новогродівська») - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her late husband.
6.  On 28 May 2001 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded her 23,741.84[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”). The judgment was sent for enforcement to the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції).
7.  Subsequently, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 20 December 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 28 May 2001. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 14 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
8.  In August 2002, the applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 10 October 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, for the same reasons as before. On 16 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court of 10 October 2002. On 22 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
9.  In February 2003 the Novogrodivska Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, in February 2004 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Селидівського міського управління юстиції).
10.  The judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced by instalments, the last amount being paid on 31 August 2004.
11.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk region against the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused to her by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 24 November 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 21 July 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation and the proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Alapitkä.
6.  On 5 October 1994 the applicant sustained injuries during an operation on his back. On 14 March 1997 he issued a summons claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and compensation for costs from the Patient Insurance Association (potilasvakuutusyhdistys, patientförsäkrings-förening; later renamed as the Patient Insurance Board (potilasvakuutuskeskus, patientförsäkringscentral)).
7.  On 18 June 1998 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) found the medical treatment inadequate and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant non-pecuniary damage for pain and suffering and to reimburse his medical expenses and legal costs.
8.  Both parties appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten).
9.  On 10 March 1999 the Court of Appeal invited the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården; “the Authority”) to submit its report on the matter.
10.  The Authority requested medical opinions from Drs N. and M., which were delivered on 28 May 1999 and 25 October 1999, respectively. Considering that the two opinions were partly contradictory, the Authority asked on 24 November 1999 for a third opinion from Professor A. On 10 May 2000, 2 August 2000 and 18 September 2000 the Authority inquired of him whether the opinion would soon be ready. Professor A.’s opinion was finally submitted on 28 December 2000, and on 17 January 2001 the Authority submitted its report to the Court of Appeal.
11.  In his observations to the appellate court the applicant complained, inter alia, about the delay of the Authority in submitting its report to the Court of Appeal, and invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
12.  On 17 October 2001, having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claims.
13.  The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 6 June 2002.
14.  Meanwhile, on 31 October 2000 the applicant sent a petition to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (oikeusasiamies, ombudsman) complaining about the length of the proceedings before the Authority. On 2 January 2002 the Deputy Ombudsman criticised the Authority for unreasonable delay in issuing the requested report. She maintained, however, that the case did not disclose any unlawfulness in violation of section 21 of the Constitution of Finland. The Deputy Ombudsman did not examine the Court of Appeal’s proceedings as the case was at the time still pending before the Supreme Court.